Furthermore, the Examiner fails to provide a reason as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reversed the order of the throttle and filter. A claimed invention may be obvious even when the prior art does not teach each claim limitation, so long as the record contains some reason why one of skill in the art would modify the prior art to obtain the claimed invention. Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added).